FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 58
Citation: Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 58 Appeal from: Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 613 Parties: TRAMANCO PTY LTD (ACN 010 101 872) v BPW TRANSPEC PTY LTD (ACN 006 645 272) File number: QUD 678 of 2012 Judges: ALLSOP CJ, GREENWOOD AND NICHOLAS JJ Date of judgment: 16 May 2014 Catchwords: PATENTS – costs of patent proceedings – where appellant (patentee) unsuccessful on infringement and respondent substantially unsuccessful on validity – where respondent raised numerous grounds of invalidity most of which were rejected – appellant to pay 20% of respondent’s costs of the proceeding (including the cross-claim) and 20% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Cases cited: Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261
PAC Mining Pty Ltd v Esco Corporation (No 2) [2009] FCAFC 52
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd(No 2) (2011) 91 IPR 482
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 17 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr A Franklin SC Solicitor for the Appellant: Bennett & Philp Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P W Collinson SC with Ms S Gatford Solicitor for the Respondent: Madgwicks Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 678 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: TRAMANCO PTY LTD (ACN 010 101 872)
AppellantAND: BPW TRANSPEC PTY LTD (ACN 006 645 272)
Respondent
JUDGES:
ALLSOP CJ, GREENWOOD & NICHOLAS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
16 MAY 2014
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The costs orders of the primary judge made on 6 March 2013 be set-aside and, in lieu thereof, orders that the appellant (applicant) pay 20% of the respondent’s costs of the proceedings (including the cross-claim).
2.The appellant pay 20% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 678 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: TRAMANCO PTY LTD (ACN 010 101 872)
AppellantAND: BPW TRANSPEC PTY LTD (ACN 006 645 272)
Respondent
JUDGES:
ALLSOP CJ, GREENWOOD & NICHOLAS JJ
DATE:
16 MAY 2014
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT
For reasons given in our judgment delivered on 13 March 2014 (Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 23) we upheld the primary judge’s finding that none of the relevant claims of the patent in suit was infringed. On the question of validity, we concluded that none of the relevant claims were shown to be invalid except for claims 21, 22 and 23 which we held should be revoked on the ground…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FCAFC 58
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature of the respondent's multiple grounds of invalidity, most of which were rejected. Despite the respondent's substantial success on the validity issue, the court recognised the appellant's partial success on the infringement claim. The court balanced these factors and decided on a proportionate costs allocation. The appellant was ordered to pay 20% of the respondent's costs for the entire proceeding, including the cross-claim, as well as 20% of the respondent's costs of the appeal.
In its decision, the court set aside the previous costs orders made on 6 March 2013 and substituted them with new orders. These new orders required the appellant to pay 20% of the respondent’s costs for the entire proceedings, including the cross-claim, and 20% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal. The court's rationale was based on the respective successes and failures of the parties on the substantive claims, resulting in a fair and balanced costs outcome.
The final orders were that the costs orders from 6 March 2013 were to be set aside and replaced with new orders mandating the appellant to pay 20% of the respondent’s costs for the entire proceeding, including the cross-claim, and 20% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal. These orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The costs orders of the primary judge made on 6 March 2013 be set-aside and, in lieu thereof, orders that the appellant (applicant) pay 20% of the respondent’s costs of the proceedings (including the cross-claim).
2. The appellant pay 20% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.